I eventually managed to win the original campaign on the highest difficulty setting but several times only got minor victories or lost outright in the first try. Now I have played the 1939, 1940 and 1941 DLC campaigns at the same difficulty level and got a decisive victory in each and every scenario in the very first attempt. Actually iirc it has never even been close, often I needed little more than half of the allotted turns. And I also have 20,000 prestige points saved up.

I know that it's not because I'm so brilliant. As I said, the original campaign was a challenge for me and there are still scenarios where I have no idea how to accomplish a decisive victory (for example USA East Coast). But the DLC games have become pretty much routine destructions of overmatched enemy forces. I finished the last scenario in the 1941 DLC campaign, Demyansk pocket, by pretty much destroying all Soviet forces on the map (some where saved by a premature DV when I had escorted enough supply carriers) instead of fighting for life trying to hold the pocket, and this was the final straw that made me wonder if it makes really sense to go on. Does anyone have similar experiences?

To be honest, I play with CHESS mode activated, but I don't think this gives me a decisive advantage (at least it did make no big difference in the original campaign which I had also played in normal mode).

I had the same going, then came -44 and -45... Have had some nasty encounters with USSR Guard Infantry and IS tanks. Those are NASTY!!! I had some 40k prestige banked at one time, I am now down to 4k, and that is only due to not giving my ground units more than strength 10 (with a few exceptions) between the battles.

It's taken a while as I don't have much time to play and also had to take many breaks in order to not get bored too much but today I finally finished the Grand Campaign East victoriously.

I must say I cannot confirm that things got tougher in the later years. I easily DV'd every single scenario in the Grand Campaign and actually found the '43-'45 scenarios rather easier than the earlier ones because I had managed to build up a core with lots of veteran, overstrength Tigers and Panthers that the Russians had no match for. I always overstrengthed my units to the max and bought the best equipment available and finished with 50,000 prestige points despite of that. Or perhaps it actually was because of that - if you fight prudently with superior units you won't have to replace many losses.

I will take a longer break now but intend to try the Grand campaign once more on Rommel, with the regular random combat results and with the strict house rule of never reloading a turn (which I admit I had done some times when I made mistakes that cost me a beloved unit) and see how well I can do in that setting.

I had the same going, then came -44 and -45... Have had some nasty encounters with USSR Guard Infantry and IS tanks. Those are NASTY!!! I had some 40k prestige banked at one time, I am now down to 4k, and that is only due to not giving my ground units more than strength 10 (with a few exceptions) between the battles.

Terje

I have had similar experience's as you. 44 and 45 are bears(pun accidental).

I found the later DLC much easier too, but mainly because the AI lack the ability to pull back units and don't have any algorithms to assess a situation. Especially defense missions where rivers pass close to victory hexes become prestige farming. If the AI had just the capability to pull back reduced units and let a fresh take over... instead they just sit there. In defense mission I can abuse this by weakening enemy units to the point they no longer would dare to attack me, even if my protecting arty runs dry, or do much damage if I get suppressed. Thus reducing number of units capable to attack me in a turn. Unfortunately the AI also ignore the consequence of his own actions. For example this mission where you have to relieve I think the Hungarian capital? There is a second Hungarian enclave in the south under attack by forces that completely outmatch them, including a KV-85. This KV-85 alone would able to force his away across the river and crush the Hungarians thanks to his high initiative and ground defense. What I did was to a rush strategic bomber down south and reduce the KV-85 supply levels. Then I placed an infantry unit next to it on the opposite side of the river. The AI will see the infantry and if would attack inflict heavy damage, but take little or even non in return. However the AI don't see it will end up on a river hex, run out of fuel in the process and spent it last ammo round on the attack. Yet it will go for a cheap attack nonetheless. Next turn I replace the infantry unit with a fresh one. Thus flanking the KV-85, that now sits on a river hex with no fuel and ammo, with two units. A moment ago this KV was the biggest danger to my Hungarian forces, now it's part of my defenses.

It's sad because the DLC Scenarios are so damn good. In fact the DLC scenarios are what make the game so appealing to me. You can witness an evolution in design and ideas with each new DLC as scenarios become better and better, with DLC 42-43 West being my favorite from all released yet. Though AC coming second. How many scenarios are there in all DLC's counted together ninety, hundred? I don't know but a lot. You would think the designers would eventually become weary of the same old, same old but instead they continuously find new creative ways to surprise me. I can only imagine what the look on my face was, when I saw in DLC '42-'43 West that the Italian units in Sicily are being temporary attached to your core across several scenarios as long you pull them out again before the scenario ends. Or what about this kamikaze destroyer in the first scenario or this submarine deploying special forces in an other. Priceless! The scenario designer(s) are certainly worth in gold. Tip of the hat to all of them.

Update: I decided to play the GC once more on Rommel, strictly without reloads, without "Chess" and also without a mod (to see if I can really beat the original game before turning to a mod). The biggest impact so far was the missing "Chess"-cheat - some bad die-rolls in the early scenarios significantly hampered my core development so while I did manage decisive victories in the other 1939 scenarios I voluntarily decided to go for only minor victories in the Modlin and Spoils of War scenarios as I didn't feel I could justify the cost for the additional in-scenario replacements that would have been necessary to attack and take all objectives. So perfection is already out of the window after the 1939 campaign but I like the core I now take on to 1940. Let's see how things develop.

Update: I decided to play the GC once more on Rommel, strictly without reloads, without "Chess" and also without a mod (to see if I can really beat the original game before turning to a mod). The biggest impact so far was the missing "Chess"-cheat - some bad die-rolls in the early scenarios significantly hampered my core development so while I did manage decisive victories in the other 1939 scenarios I voluntarily decided to go for only minor victories in the Modlin and Spoils of War scenarios as I didn't feel I could justify the cost for the additional in-scenario replacements that would have been necessary to attack and take all objectives. So perfection is already out of the window after the 1939 campaign but I like the core I now take on to 1940. Let's see how things develop.

Chess mode makes a huge difference in difficulty; having it enabled probably bumps the game down 1 or 2 difficulty levels, if not more.

For reference, I play test my mod without reloading and without chess mode.